I am ignorant when it comes to understanding the true importance of the ad packs and base oils in the new CK-4 formulations. I have the mindset of “more is better” when it comes to zinc and phosphorus, boron, and moly, but honestly, I couldn’t tell you benefit of one over the other. The only reason I mention this is due to the recent reduction in zinc and phosphorus in Chevron DELO 5w-40 synthetic, which is the oil I currently use. Are VOA’s truly important to the uneducated consumer such as I, or should I blindly trust the spec of CK-4 and go off wear rates?

As many will tell you oil formulation is a balancing act to meet certain performance goals. More isn't necessarily better. Much less compared to others might be. Some may be barely making the standards required while others surpass it.

I don’t lose too much sleep on where my oil is in the CK-4 pecking order as long as its CK-4. However I recognize there are folks around who want to solve that issue and good on them as long as they they use science and not coffee shop here say.

So Chevron is claiming, rather prominently, that their new CK-4 oils offer 50% less wear (than previous oils). And since they pushed a CAT to 1,000,000 miles on old Delo, I dunno how much better they could make it ... But, they think they have.

So the coffee shop scuttle butt is that some of that additional calcium is in the form of organic calcium AW additives in lieu of the old ZDDP formula ... Reduce the zinc and phos and still achieve better wear properties. I dunno if this is so, but it's looking that way

Edited by BrocLuno (01/05/1808:50 PM)

_________________________
Formerly in marine engineering. In an earlier life I owned my own petroleum tank truck, and hauled for the majors and independent's.

Im not an oil scientist but i would say CK4 cleans better with those higher detergents. Not sure why you would want more magnesium.

Higher magnesium does and did have a purpose. It may have been helpful formulating early on when the first lubricants came out in CJ-4 E7, E9, with the 1.0 SA limit coupled with higher starting TBN. It always seemed to be most common in any lube (gas or diesel) when trying to ramp up TBN while limiting SA.

While the oil blenders touted how great CK-4 is compared to CJ-4, I have yet to see it. My Detroit engine, it has had 6 oil changes using CK-4 now and the UOA's look no better, or worse, than they did with CJ-4. This "wear rate is 50% less with CK-4" thing that they tout really seems like smoke and mirrors marketing. While I am not in fear of CK-4, what it claims to be seems to be a big yawn. When it comes down to it, the new spec is primarily targeting emission component life. And since my Detroit does not have EGR, SCR, DPF components, only the engine itself is in play, and in that regard, CK-4 is a joke in terms of the marketing hoopla it was given by the blenders.

_________________________
Freedom is not about having the choice to do what you want, but the choice to do what you ought.

Plus I can't really guess what in the UOA you'd look at to indicate relative performance between the two standards. There would be no statistical correlation whatsoever, good luck determining a 50% wear reduction via some particular parameter. The claim might be valid but you aren't going to see it there.

When it comes down to it, the new spec is primarily targeting emission component life.

Nothing there really changed. Phosphorus and SAPS limits remained the same. The only ones that got targetted technically were those claiming CK-4/SN in the so-called ILSAC grades. A 15w-40, even in CK-4/SN, didn't have to adjust phosphorus or SAPS in general.

Some reduced phosphorus, because of the grades they chose, but some already had done that when they elected to blend a product to ACEA E6, for instance, which reduced phosphorus on its own.